Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re: Lots of children have the wrong DNA. (Score 1) 266

Except that penises don't work that way. One of the main reason that men who are raped by men don't report is because they're confused or embarrassed because they got an erection or even ejaculated.

This is news to me, but okay, I'm willing to accept that it's theoretically possible for a woman to physically arouse a man who is not attracted to her, by somehow forcibly stimulating his anus. This isn't a skill she'd be able to develop with a willing partner, however, since they would be aroused anyway. Nor do I expect it would be easy to find some kind of how-to guide, or join a gang of women who do this. And she couldn't have learned it as personal experience from being a victim (being the wrong gender). Without some kind of inside knowledge, I think she'd have to essentially take a punt, and hope to strike it lucky, which doesn't seem like a very empowering situation. She'd have to take the risk that, despite her best efforts, she might fall flat on her face, and if she's willing to do that, then it's easier to hit on a guy in a bar. And she'd have to be okay dealing with a man's anus, when it's the penis she wants. A woman raping a man still seems much less likely to me than a man raping a woman, or a man raping a man. (At least if we are talking about forced rather than coerced, and the victim is not attracted to the attacker.)

if you could just turn it off with willpower, why would premature ejaculation ever be a thing? Why would teenagers have to carry things in front of themselves on occasion?

No, I don't think men can do that. (Or at least I can't.) I just don't think I would feel aroused while being attacked, even by someone I was attracted to. I think I would probably feel frightened and humiliated.

we're better off with people who disagree but have open minds and are willing to listen than with people who all mindlessly agree. I tip my hat to you, sir.

Okay, thanks. :-)

You girlfriend wants to get pregnant and you're not ready yet, your ex wants to get back at you, she's mad at your girlfriend, she's mad that you turned her down - sexual assault it isn't usually just about sex, it's sex and power.
What if you're sick or injured or drunk or high?
Or what if she threatens you? She'll divorce you and say you molested the kids. She can call the cops and say you tried to rape her (and even if the case if thrown out quickly, it can still be devastating). And if you physically resist, that's great - until she get injured (even slightly), then the story will be that you attacked her.

Okay, maybe. It does sound a bit more plausible to me if it's a partner or ex-partner, who knows the victim is attracted to them, especially if the victim is somehow incapacitated, other than by being physically overpowered, in a way that allows them to still be aroused. I can easily imagine that, if I was, say laid up in a bed with multiple broken limbs, an ex-partner would have little trouble forcing themselves on me against my will (if no-one else was around to stop them). This is a pretty specific situation, though. For drunk or high, okay, in situations that it would be considered rape if it happened to a woman. For threats though, again, I suspect I might find this unarousing (especially if the threat was that she'd say I molested the kids).

I guess this is partly speculation, having never actually been in this specific situation. I have been verbally abused by my partner though, and received (comparatively minor, and more veiled) threats. And though I am physically attracted to my partner, I certainly haven't been aroused in these situations.

I guess though, if I had been having an affair, and my lover threatened to tell my wife about it if it didn't continue, that might not be unarousing (especially if it was accompanied by something like "I love you so much, and I know you really love me, and want to be with me, and you're just pushing me away because you don't want to hurt her, but she doesn't deserve you", and I believed she meant it). I think this is kind of walking a tight rope between consent and being unaroused, though

That said, I guess the whole rape aspect is perhaps kind of besides the point, and lying about contraception may be a more common way of achieving the same goal.

I'm not saying that this is very common, or that men need to get all paranoid. But just because someone's half your size doesn't mean they can't get leverage over you.

Yes, I'd certainly agree that it's not necessary to physically overpower someone to have leverage over them, but even so, I think that being (figuratively) forced into a situation could often be unarousing.

In any case, I do at least agree on principle.

Maybe I'm overemphasizing language, but you do have to push people to even realize that there's even a debate to be had. His girlfriend lied to get pregnant and wants to keep it, who cares, he had better upend his life - end of story. Even when there's an awareness of how much that sucks there no 'maybe it doesn't have to be that way' spark of inspiration.

Okay, fair enough, if there's reasonable evidence. This may be tricky though, as with rape cases. And, without wanting to blame the victim, I think men may be well advised to wear a condom if having sex with a partner who they don't want to get pregnant, and don't completely trust, as, without wanting to blame the victim, I think women may be well advised not to walk through a rough neighbourhood at night.

Comment Re: Lots of children have the wrong DNA. (Score 1) 266

You're missing the damn point. The woman gets a pro choice pass. If she gets pregnant, she can kill the kid. The man gets no such choice. He will be forced at gunpoint to support a child he doesn't want. The abortion makes the supposedly asymmetrical symmetric again, so I reiterate my point: if you're going to be pro choice, don't be a fucking hypocrite about it.

Reposting something I posted elsewhere:

I think it's a mind, not a body, that defines a person. One body is usually associated with one mind. However if we think about (or postulate) cases where this isn't the case, I think it becomes obvious that it's the mind that's important, and the body is just a vessel.

e.g. We think of Conjoint/Siamese twins as twins, two people, not one person, because there are two minds, despite there being only one body. If a person is decapitated, they are dead and gone, regardless of whether their body could be kept on life support, because it is the mind that is important not the body, and the mind is gone. Considering the hypothetical situation in "body swap" stories like Freaky Friday, we would say that the people are in different bodies, not that the people have different minds in them, because it is the mind, not the body, that defines the person.

There can't be a mind until after 20 weeks gestation (18 weeks after fertilisation), because connections don't begin to form in the cerebral cortex until then, so until then there is just an empty vessel, IMHO.

As to abortion making the situation symmetrical again, no it doesn't.

Men have contraceptive options. They can have a vasectomy and/or wear a condom. Women have no right to force men to do either of these things. These are men's choices to make, because they involve men's bodies. A woman could refuse to have sex with a man because he hasn't done these things, however.

Women have contraceptive options, and also have the option of an abortion. Men have no right to force women to do these things. These are women's choices to make, because they involve women's bodies. A man could refuse to have sex with a woman because she hasn't used contraception. If it comes to a woman choosing whether or not to have an abortion, however, it's a bit late for the man to decide he didn't want to have sex.

Don't be a fucking moron.

Comment Re: Lots of children have the wrong DNA. (Score 1) 266

First, wanting to have sex isn't the same as consent. Men really do turn down women for sex, even when they're turned on - you don't have to be a slave to your emotions, even if that's what's expected of you.

No, I don't have to be a slave to my emotions, but the suggested situation, a woman that I find attractive attacking me, and forcing me to have sex with her, just doesn't sound very plausible to me. I guess, partly, I'd wonder, if she's attractive, why does she feel the need to force anyone to have sex with her? Partly, I suspect that being attacked would ruin the mood for me, thus rendering the exercise futile. (Partly, too, I'm not sure I would be attracted to a woman who was bigger and stronger than me enough that she could overpower me, but perhaps that's just personal taste.)

Second, erections are reflexive - hormones, vibration, or just falling asleep can cause erections. If nothing else, there's pressure on the prostate... I guess what I'm saying is that if boys in an African war zone can get erections when forced to have sex with their own mothers in front of the psychos that just butchered their dad, I'm pretty sure there are less extreme examples.

I don't know about what you're referring to, and I still find it difficult to imagine. But okay, just because I find it difficult to imagine doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I'm fine with men not having to pay child support if a jury finds the woman guilty of rape (including statutory rape, and all the same rules that apply in the converse situation).

We shouldn't ever just take someone's word, but if a man gets his girlfriend on tape admitting that she stopped taking birth control without telling him in order to get pregnant and make him marry her, I think that should play some role in how responsibility is meted out.

Fair enough.

And I'm pointing out that in our legal system almost nothing is a 'good enough' reason: In some US states there are men paying child support because the mother chose them at random and the man missed the single mailed summons. The court says they're the father by default, and the first they hear about it is when their wages get garnished.

Okay. I don't live in the US, so I'll take your word on it.

So even if our lists of what's 'good enough' don't align exactly we should still be able to agree that something should be on it.

I'm not going to argue with that.

The rest was just an attempt to point out our biases - ones that run so deep that our entire vocabulary changes when we stop talking about what she should do and start talking about what he should do. If we can't admit to those, how are we going to come to a fair and just conclusion?

In general, I think there's often biased language where there's disagreement. Not that this isn't a problem, but I don't think it's a problem unique to this situation.

Comment Re: Lots of children have the wrong DNA. (Score 1) 266

Jumping out of the bushes and raping him is probably quite rare, though I should mention that that situation is rather rare for women as well. But sex while too drunk or high to consent, or passed out - that might be a bit more common.

But we're getting off the track of the main conversation, this was meant to be a bellwether for our expectations of men. If even the most extreme situations (being too young to legally participate, or even not committing any voluntary act at all) aren't enough to mitigate responsibility, then it's pretty clear that we're not giving men in other situations (lied to about birth control, not told about other possible paternity) a fair hearing.

Honestly, I still have some trouble imagining a man having sex with a woman against his will. I generally don't get an erection unless I actually want sex. I'll grant you have a case with statutory rape, or, obviously, if the child isn't theirs, but these things can be checked. I can well imagine some women might lie about birth control, but what would you do if the man claims this? Simply accept his word? This isn't (or at least certainly shouldn't be) enough to condemn a man for rape, and I don't think it should be enough to condemn a woman for deceit either.

Sure nature is unfair, but that doesn't mean we have to be. Nature sticks women with kids after sex, but lets men walk away, and also give us instincts to try to counteract that imbalance. So we invented induced abortion and birth control, fought to make them legal, and then to make the free. And we also make men pay for dates, pressure them to marry pregnant partners, and now hunt them down after one night stands and even after they're victims of sex crimes. At some point our one-sided re-balancing of the scales will start to make things unfair in the opposite direction, and I think we've passed that.

There are all sorts of norms, pressures, and expectations in society, some of which are unfair to women, and some of which are unfair to men. I don't think men should have to always pay for dates, or marry pregnant partners. I don't think we were talking about these things though, but rather about law. Legally, I do think men should be required to contribute to supporting their children, unless they have a good reason not to.

Comment Re: Lots of children have the wrong DNA. (Score 1) 266

BTW, in all seriousness, I'm 100% all for signing a pre-nup that opts the couple out of any state involved divorce proceeding and instead substitutes that with a jury trial via a local church. The shaming alone from that process as an old person on the jury yells out "I'VE BEEN MARRIED 60 YEARS AND YOU WANT TO DO WHAT? MAN THE 1!@$123 UP SON!" will produce sound results. OK fine maybe it isn't for everyone, but it should be an option.

My wife got into a routine of whiling away her evenings by hoeing into bourbon, playing on Facebook, and yelling abuse at me. Should I venture to say anything back, she'd really crank it up, stomping around slamming doors, or get right in my face screaming, and follow me wherever I go. She has lied about me, e.g. telling her friends and family that I said "I didn't marry you to get this fat", when I have never said anything of the sort. Also we had a joint account, and, after the bills were paid (thankfully, I guess), she would spend the remainder on bourbon, tobacco, junk food, gifts for her friends and family, and "to make it fair", gifts for me, that I didn't want. ("See, I got you something, why aren't you happy?"). When I tried to talk to her about things, she'd either promise to improve, and perhaps do so for a while, or she'd yell abuse.

I stuck with her. Eventually, I separated our bank accounts, and moved all my stuff into the basement, and put a lock on it, and things are now going relatively well. It's hard though, especially since she's spread it around that this has all come out of nowhere, and she's very hurt but she's just doing her best to cope, and "thinking about the kids".

Anyway, you'll have to excuse me if I take a different point of view, and tell you where you can shove your ignorant-as-shit old church person, and their "MAN THE 1!@$123 UP SON!"

Comment Re: Lots of children have the wrong DNA. (Score 1) 266

men can make women pregnant

No, if we're staying legal here, men can only offer to have sex with women. He can't make her have sex, he can't make her stop taking birth control, he can't prevent her from getting an abortion.

Okay, technically perhaps I should have said "A joint decision by a man and a woman can lead to the woman being pregnant, but can not lead to the man being pregnant." I didn't mean to suggest that it's not in part the woman's doing, only to point out that it is in part the man's doing, but only the woman becomes pregnant. The argument for the woman being allowed to choose whether or not she has an abortion is that it's her body. We could argue about when there is also a child involved. That's a legitimate question. The man's body, however, is not involved.

But they can make men pay child support, even if he never wanted kids, even if he never consented to sex. Can you at least admit that that isn't fair?

Admit it would be unfair if the man was raped? Yes, although I doubt that's a very common occurrence.

Or admit it's unfair that women have wombs and men don't? Yes, but only in so far as it's unfair that some people are born smarter, stronger, and more attractive than others. The world isn't fair. (And this particular inequality is a two-edged sword. Personally, I'm quite happy without.)

Comment Re: Lots of children have the wrong DNA. (Score 1) 266

If we're going to be a pro choice nation, let's go all the way. How much of a fucking double standard is it that a mother can "choose" keep a child or not, but a father gets forced to support a child for 18 years. If pro choice supporters don't want to be flaming hypocrites, they need to fight for the end of child support.

The situation's not symmetrical, because men can make women pregnant, but women can't make men pregnant.

Comment Re:GPL can never create proprietary apps/games (Score 1) 237

When the copyright holder voluntarily uses the GPL that instance of their source code is absolutely bound by the GPL. That is why dual licensing is necessary for proprietary distribution, a non-GPL instance is required.

I'm at a loss to understand how you think this could work. If the copyright holder licenses a work under the GPL, and doesn't adhere to the terms of the licence themselves, who do you think could sue them, and for what? (e.g. Do you think licensees could sue them for breach of copyright?)

Comment Re:GPL can never create proprietary apps/games (Score 1) 237

The copyright holder doesn't have to agree to the licence to get rights to modify and redistribute their own code, because they already have these rights anyway. (Even if they did, however, it still wouldn't be a problem, because only the copyright holder can enforce the licence.)

That's not the issue. The issue is if the copyright holder can release a proprietary binary built from the GPL version of their source code, no they can not.

It is the same issue, because binaries are a kind of derivative of the source. The GPL treats them as a special case, but that doesn't matter, because the copyright holder doesn't have to agree to the GPL. The GPL acts to grant others a subset of the rights that the copyright holder already has. But even if the copyright holder did have to agree to the GPL, only they would have a legal right to sue themselves for breach of it. (If there were multiple authors, then any could enforce the licence against the others, though.)

Comment Re:GPL can never create proprietary apps/games (Score 1) 237

No. You can not GPL your own code and make proprietary binaries. The terms of the GPL require everyone, including the original copyright holder, to provide source to anyone they gave a binary to and grant these people the right to modify and redistribute...

The copyright holder doesn't have to agree to the licence to get rights to modify and redistribute their own code, because they already have these rights anyway. (Even if they did, however, it still wouldn't be a problem, because only the copyright holder can enforce the licence.)

To create a proprietary version the original copyright holder has to dual license. ...

You don't technically have to dual license the free version yourself. What you do need, if you want to incorporate derivatives into your proprietary version, is to have the authors of derivatives dual license their contributions. Dual licensing the free version shows the authors of derivatives, by example, what you would like them to do.

Comment Re:GPL can never create proprietary apps/games (Score 1) 237

where you run into trouble: ...
someone puts a patch against BAR in the GPL version out on GitHub (or anywhere else). ...
Unless you get permission from the patch creator you can't pull BAZ back into your proprietary trunk. ...
So sure someone can dual licence, but it can really be a PITA, and thus just going MIT licence is so much less headache.

If you license the free version under MIT/BSD, then derivatives can have additional requirements (e.g. derivatives could be made proprietary by someone else), so you can't necessarily even incorporate derivatives into the free version, let alone your proprietary version. You'd be worse off, not better off.

Comment Re: Release it with source code unde GPL (Score 1) 237

... the GPL isn't about freedom. ...
... Freedom isn't about telling other people exactly what they can and can't do. That's tyranny. ...
... Just look at how long the text of the GPL is compared to much freer licenses like the BSD or MIT licenses. ...

Allowing people freedom requires preventing people from restricting others' freedom. Countries have laws, and they are often long. We can't accurately compare the freedom of countries by comparing how long their laws are.

Besides, much of the GPL (aside from the requirement to disclose source) is designed to counter the requirements in copyright laws (which are generally very long, and full of restrictions and limitations).

Slashdot Top Deals

Nothing succeeds like excess. -- Oscar Wilde